click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
MSNBCW 34
CNNW 31
CNBC 10
FBC 7
MSNBC 7
CNN 5
KGO (ABC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
LANGUAGE
English 112
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 112 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.ç so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. >> a reversal of fortune on wall street. stocks trade on fiscal cliff comments from president obama and john boehner. >> no substantive progress has been made in the talks between the white house and the house over the last two weeks. >> republicans know where we stand. we've said it, we've said it, we've said it so many times. >> i think all of us today are confident we can reach a bipartisan agreement by christmas time. >> according to congressional republican aides, they say they have obtained a copy of the white house's proffer here. at least $50 billion in new spending. >> do you have faith in any of them to rise above? >> would it be okay to go over? >> we will rise above. >> morgan stanley wealth management's chief investment strategist up next with his list of winners and losers. plus, how you can make money in these shaky markets as the year winds down. >>> later, as lawsuits pile up and hewlett-packard stock suffers, carly fiorina will join me for her first interview since the autonomy disaster came
out of this deficit. >> we've talked about that before. thanks very much. that is the first hour of "the closing bell." stay tuned. up next, a couple ceos with their take on where we go from here. the second hour with maria. i'll see you tomorrow. >>> and it is 4:00 on wall street. do you know where your money is? hi, everybody. welcome back to "the closing bell." i'm maria bartiromo on the floor of the new york stock exchange. the market on a roller coaster ride today. a slight gain on the session, even though the market closed off the best levels of the afternoon. it had been up about 77 at its best. nasdaq composite picked up 23 points. the s&p 500 tonight up 7 1/2, half a percent. the market continues to watch the fiscal cliff. trading action has resolvolved around this. ben, what is your fiscal cliff strategy? what do you want to do with your money in the economy does go off the fiscal cliff? >> yeah, we were worried about that back in september, october. so even though we like the equity markets going into 2013, we wanted to hedge ourselves a little bit, so we took money ou
to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid
at revenue from somebody. on the state side, when i got elections a $3.65 billion deficit. the worst in the nation. i quickly realized it's too large to tax your way out of or to cut your way out. it had to be a combination. that portion hasn't happened to the extent we presumed it would. this year, we have to trim expenditures by $365 million more than we otherwise would have. but, the grand bargain with the public is, to maintain a level of service they have a comfort level with. to not overdo it, not overextend ones self. >> when grow to voters and say, we are going to raise taxes, what is the pitch? >> i did 14 town hall meetings, no, 17 town hall meetings and got yelled at at every single one of them. we had a conversation with the public about what are the options. if you are talking cutting a budget by 17% because that's what the revenue short fall was, they quickly understood, you can't cut a budget 17% in a single year and sustain the level of services that allow their children to be educate and their mother and father remain in a nursing home and receive benefits and so see
and bridges and our schools. and i want to do all this while bringing down our deficits in a balanced and responsible way. [ applause ] on this last point, you probably heard a lot of talk in washington and in the media about the deedlines that we're facing on jobs and taxes and investment. this is not some run-of-the-mill debate. this isn't about which political party can come out on top in negotiations. we've got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country. our long-term goal is to get our long-term deficit under control in a way that is balanced and is fair and that would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations. and i believe both parties can and will work together in the coming weeks to get that done. we know how that gets done. we're going to have to raise a little more revenue, we've got to cut out spending we don't need, building on the trillion dollars of spending cuts we've already made, and if we combine those two things, we can create a path where america's paying its bills while
, a lot of the other issues surrounding deficit reduction are going to be a whole lot easier. if we get this wrong, the economy is going to go south. we don't have a lot of time here. we have a few weeks to get this thing done. we could get it done tomorrow. optimistically, i don't think we are going to get it done tomorrow. >> the white house is using all social media resources to get the message out and put pressure on the republicans. >> today, i'm asking congress to listen to the people who sent us here to serve. i'm asking americans all across the country to make your voice heard. tell members of congress what a $2,000 tax hike would mean to you. call your members of congress, write them an e-mail, post it on their facebook walls. you can tweet it using the hash tag my 2 k, not y2 k. >> the president was laughing about you the strategy, seriously effective. the my2k was one of the top trends on twitter all day long. republicans aren't too happy. they are getting outflanked. >> if the president wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be talking with the members of his own party rig
't raise enough taxes to completely deal with the deficit. and you do have to do reforms. you need to reform the tax system. you certainly need to make additional cuts. i do want to remind you though, that we have already voted on one trillion dollars of cuts, cuts that would cause great pain. i agree what you 100%. it can not be done. melissa: spending cutting numbers are even smaller than the tax numbers. they don't get us there either. i'm worried about stalling the economy. in the meantime when we talk about raising taxes and what it would do to small business. democrats like to point out we would only raise taxes on 3% of small business owners. >> right. melissa: but that 3% generates 50% of the income from small business. so they're hiring the majority of people. to me that is going to cost us jobs. >> well, you know what? i think that what will cost us jobs for sure is if we go off thissfiscal cliff, because it is not just about raising tacks. it is also about the debt ceiling. it is about unemployment insurance. we have number of key issues that absolutely have to be resolv
of 2013-type solution. but the reality of dealing with this economy, its debt, it's deficit, spending priorities and all of that is not going to get done in the next five weeks. so let's be honest about that. i agree with you. i think that they're going to come to a short-term stopgap solution that deals with the cliff, that deals with the bush tax cuts that expire, that deal with the increase in unemployment rate that's due to hit in january. they'll deal with those short-term things, but the long-term systemic substantive points that need to be addressed will not get addressed in the next four weeks. >> steve, how would you markets respond if they decide we'll have a short-term fix but we haven't actually managed to come up with the real healthy response to what the economy needs? >> you're seeing a total kick the can. we really got nothing done this december, tough luck, we just want to extend it six months, i think the markets would be jittery but would probably accept it. going over the cliff -- and we were talking about this the other night in washington with a bunch of ceos," g
? >> because it's not really kind of a huge driver of the deficit we're talking about right now. it's really the health care programs. but i think if you just pull back and make it really simple for a second, what you see are the democrats are saying, wait a second. increasing taxes a little bit on the rich or significantly on the rich, however you want to look at it, is pretty popular with the public or at least has broad public support. cutting entitlements is not very popular. it could be the right thing to do. perhaps there's a way to do it. but it's not very popular. you're asking us to not do the thing and say that you want to help us do the thing that is popular. and you want us the democrats to go on the table and lay out the details of the thing that is really unpopular. are you crazy? >> your short answer is no, we will not get any significant entitlement reform? >> not now. i think what the democrats want to do is kind of box those tax hikes up and get them agreed to in principle. kind of break the republicans' back a little on that. then, okay, maybe we can have a discussion on e
who actually came up with a plan to cut the deficit, a plan that everyone hailed as magnificent but no one wanted to adopt. >>> joining me now is cnn contributor will cain. he leans right. good morning, will. >> good morning. let me tell you something. you said the popularity of gangnam style knows no limits. i beg to differ. >> you do? >> i think we just found its limits, when 8-year-olds start doing gangnam style you can count on its popularity decreasing. we're about a year away from it being makarena. >> trying to get two sides come together to come to a deal on the fiscal cliff. >> i don't know about young people's abilities to force cats and dogs and democrats and republicans to come together to find a deal. he had a much more profound message than just simply dancing in that clip, in that psa essentially. he was trying to alert young people to the fact that old people, bluntly, are organized. look at the army of aarp representatives that ensure that programs like medicare and social security, programs that take up something like 50% of our federal budget will remain intac
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
of a process to reduce the deficit the others face. >> republicans don't like owning reform either. this was tom cole on sunday. >> only obama can fix entitlements. democrat versus democrat fight over entitlement which mirrors their fighting over taxes. a response to an argument that was starting before former adviser steve ratner and minnesota democratic congressman keith ellison with near glee. there is no real choice about that. we're clear social security is off the table. this is, to me, the much more interesting debate between tom and dan. >> you want republicans arguing. both sides are also battling for control of the debt ceiling which may represent the republicans' greatest point of leverage in these budget talks. goo the speaker of the house says that's a nonstarter. >> silliness. congress will never give up the power. i've made it clear to the president. we need cuts in reform greater than the increase in the debt limit. >> bottom line, you've got to put a detailed plan on the table that the white house ends up agreeing to some of it, rejects some of it in the same way t
is that at a minimum, any deficit package has to include this immediate february and march debt ceiling that we're going to hit. >> is jack lew the current chief of staff and former budget director the top candidate to be treasury? what is your best guess? >> he appears to be the frontrunner from everything you see and read and hear and he is a -- i've known him a long time. he's an accomplished guy. he knows these issues perfectly. he has worked in the financial community and has a sense of that and vice versa. and so i think he would be a it terrific choice. >> we should say there are a couple other people who have been rumored to being vetted. roger altman, former treasury official, larry fink, be erskine bowles. this what is alan simpson, erskine bowles' partner in the deficit commission, had to say about that possibility last week on the show. >> he said he would be very pleased to do that. he shared that with me personally, as long as they move the treasury department to north carolina, to charlotte. i don't think -- >> he's worked so hard on this. you don't think he could be persuaded? >
is the problem? we cannot raise taxes enough to take care of $1 trillion worth of deficit spending every single year. so let's get off of this and get on to the other side and start talking about what we have to do to cut our spending, to reform those entitlement programs that are the debt drivers and then do pro-growth tax reform that will stimulate the economy, get the money coming in. it's the best way to get money coming in and that gives everybody a job and helps to take care of the fiscal problem and balanced is what we need. >> congresswoman diane black, thank you for joining me this morning. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> i want to bring in our political power panel. political reporter, karen tumult, karen finney and robert trainam. karen, since i know you the best, i'm going to call you k-fin as not to confuse everyone. it seems the taxes are going to go up on the wealthy. the question is whether or not it's through the tax increases or closing the loopholes and the deductions. so do you think that we are closer to a deal today than yesterday if. >> i do. in that now they're
overwhelming the deficit story was at that point. you know, you look at that administration. the coming in, just no one thought they could do anything. it's not unlike the conversations we're having now. and they went in, they did the deal, president bush had to shift from read my lips to as only he could put it, read my hips. and it was good for the country, it created a political dynamic that cost president bush the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of cou
thought you should take a look. it totals $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction over ten years. the part that stood out to us was $600 billion in proposed savings in medicare reforms. how? in part by raising the age of eligibility to 65 to maybe 67. turning down the gop proposal, dan pfieffer said, quote, it provides no details on which deductions they would eliminate, which loopholes they will close or which medicare savings they would achieve." let's head now to the white house and dan lothian. the white house will not offer a counter proposal, right? what's going on here? >> reporter: well, you know, i think the white house is digging in. the president said early on in this process that he would only sit down and really move forward, negotiate on this in any meaningful way if the tax hikes for the wealthy expired. and republicans have been pushing back on that -- tax breaks rather for the wealthy expired and republicans have been pushing back on that, say they go believe that will be harmful for the economic recovery because wealthy americans are the ones who are creating the jobs and
, congress realized that if they couldn't compromise on a deficit and revenue plan, our economy would crash. turns out they couldn't compromise. so here's what they did. in order to force themselves to work together and compromise, they concocted a catastrophic penalty that would itself crash our economy. brilliant. put it another way. if there is an asteroid headed towards the earth, we made it and fired it at ourselves. because otherwise we would never have done the hard work required to protect ourselves from asteroids. >> good morning. it's friday, november 30th. welcome to "morning joe." with us on set, we have msnbc political analyst and vice president and executive editor of msnbc.com, richard wolffe is here. >> he's here? >> my lord. right here on the set. political editor and white house correspondent for the huffington post, sam stein. >> hi. >> cute thing. and msnbc political analyst and visiting professor at nyu and former democratic congressman harold ford jr. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> he's reading. >> put that down right now. put the smut down. close it up. >> i'm l
that if we go over the cliff the deficit goes up. >> and the debt goes up. >> and the debt goes up. >> wrong. >> like our relationship people don't get it. >> deficit almost goes away. difference is about $8 trillion. >> about 10.5. >> join us tomorrow. right now it's time for "squawk on the street." >>> good wednesday morning. welcome to "squawk on the street." live at the nyse. what a morning shaping up here. a little data to look at. m&a. the president speaks to the business roundtable in a couple of hours. futures with modest gains. europe holding onto gains and china up nearly 3% over night as shanghai catches a break. our road map begins with a $20 billion deal. freeport mcmoran getting into the energy business making two acquisitions. plains exploration and mcmoran exploration. >>> concerns over the u.s. economy as adp misses estimates. the blame goes to superstorm sandy. goldman says the party is officially over for gold. >> starbucks at an investors conference will add 1,500 stores in the u.s. over the next five years. wait until you hear what they said about china. >> a big day in
that calls for $2.2 trillion in deficit savings. it includes $800 billion in tax reforms, 600 billion in medicare reforms and 600 billion in spending cuts. because it doesn't contain tax hikes for the wealthiest americans or specifics about which loopholes will be eliminated, the president immediately rejected the republican proposal. want to know how far apart democrats and republicans are? listen to this. >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> it's unfortunate the white house has spent three weeks doing basically nothing. >> what we can't do is sit here trying to figure out what works for them. >> the president's idea of negotiation is roll over and do what i ask. >> it's clear to me they made a political calculation. if their ideas are different from ours, we can't guess what they are. >> they need to be more specific. >> some specificity from them. >> he can't be serious. >> haven't even begun to be serious. >> we need to get serious. >> i don't think they're serious. >> i would say we're nowhere. period. we're nowhere. >> hard to disagree with that. we're nowhere. period. >> t
benefits to help reduce the other deficits. >> to be clear that's one thing that's clearly off the table. social security is off the tables in these negotiations. >> in a separate process to strengthen social security not as a process to reduce the deficit. >>> on the issues of taxes, is there any flexibility on the president's position? does it have to go all the way back to the tax rates on the wealthy to the clinton levels? >> again, george, we think the best way to do this is to have those tax rates go back to where and one of the best, at one of the most prosperous times in recent american history to combine that reforms that limit reductions for 2%, i'm deeply skeptical about ways to get through this without that mix of rates and reforms. >> and if congress doesn't agree, you're comfortable going over that cliff on january 1st? >> there's no reason why 98% of americans have to see their taxes go up because some members of congress on the republican side want to block tax rate increase for 2% of the wealthy americans. remember, those tax cuts cost a trillion dollars over ten years.
't think any credible economist will tell you we can simply cut our way out of the current deficits and debt. we need new revenues, and where should they come from? should they come from a middle class or working families that have really struggled or had setbacks in the last decade, or should it come from families that have done very well and can be asked to do more? if you look at the prosperity we enjoyed during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from sp
deal with the deficit? that's not coming from the markets. the bond market is saying here's the money you want and we're kind of creating these things out of nowhere to force us to deal with the long-term deficit problem but the short term markets aren't doing it. >> neil, talk about these markets you speak of. i want to play a clip of maria the other day. >> the markets right now are expecting a deal. the markets have been trading fine. if we don't gate deal, we are going to see a sizable decline in stocks. we are going to get a big disappointment. >> markets will be disappointed. the markets have expectations. who is this mr. markets that is endowed with the personality anç expectations and is this monolithic creature that will respond to, you know, what's going on in washington? are we giving the markets a little bit too much personality here? >> well, yeah. i mean, obviously the market is millions of people and institutions all over the world deciding whether to buy stocks or bonds or whatever but more broadly, you know, it is true that markets aren't, you know, they're not alway
, in the end, the taxes are going up. we still have a trillion dollar deficit. this does not solve anything. at best, even if they raise the money they think they will, and i don't think they will raise any money, they are still left with a trillion dollar deficit. how are you going to bring down a trillion dollar deficit? i think the democrats are on -- i had to get that off my chest. stuart: gm car and truck sales are up 3%. the stock, dead flat. sales up 3%. that is the car sales numbers coming in today. steve, i want to get back to you here. the democrats say, wait a second, wait a second, you raise taxes on the rich just like the clinton did back in 1992 and you end up with a bill. you have a solid expansion. what do you make up with that argument? >> i hope they do not believe that argument. look, maybe barack obama is right. maybe if you raise these taxes, it will not hurt the economy. [talking over each other] stuart: bill clinton raised taxes and the economy took off. >> there are a lot of things that influence the economy. not just taxes. there are other things. there is no moneta
in and rob neighbors bring the deficit cutting plan to capitol hill today. >> reporter: negotiators are meeting with boehner and top democrats. they heard the plan wednesday at the white house. at least one thinks there could be a deal here. >> if i were involved in the negotiations like this and everybody was purporting to be where they are, i would say that an agreement is reachable. >> i'm hopeful. it wouldn't put me anywhere near optimistic. >> reporter: one conservative is suggesting that while negotiations continue, congress should stop tax rates going up on the middle class now. >> we're not going to raise taxes on those people. i think we should make that clear to everybody. >> reporter: bottom line, no deal yet. both sides are still talking. and both sides signalling that they're willing to give some ground to get this done and get it done on time. lynn. >> thanks so much. >>> it's not how he wanted to get there but former governor mitt romney heads to the white house. president obama is hosting his campaign rival at a private lunch. no reporters will be allowed in. it is t
. >> -- that we are willing to do the hard things required to reduce the testify sit. we want to raise -- deficit. we want to raise taxes, cut defense -- we're willing to do all four of those things. megyn: marc, how does taking money out of medicare and giving it to obamacare cut spending? [laughter] >> it doesn't. >> that's not what i said, megyn. that's not what i said. >> it doesn't cut spending. they cut money out of medicare and put it to fund obamacare, but president obama has not put forward a plan to deal with the entitlement crisis. he put forward no plan on social security, medicare or medicaid, which he himself admits is what is driving the debt and driving the real fiscal crisis. so they have put forward no plans whatsoever, and when paul ryan and others have put forward our plans, they've pilied them for it. i'm glad president obama's meeting with simon. i'd love for him to meet with john john boehner. [laughter] megyn: simon's got a lot of good ideas. were you in that meeting with the unions and the progressive groups that the president had -- >> no. i was in a different meeting. t
social security is not connected to the deficit. a separate program, funded separately in the own trust fund. that needs to be dealt with separately. with regard to medicare and medicaid, those programs are floating on the overall inflation rate in healthcare. what we need to do, this is a major part of the affordable healthcare act was to bend the cost curve to bridge down the inflation rate in healthcare. in fact, in the last two year years, the inflation rate in medicare has been remarkably low. much to the surprise of everybody. some in the two or 3% range. that is incredible. part of that is due to the affordable healthcare act. undoubtedly to others. with regard to the doctor payments, that is an annual problem here in washington. started back in the early 2000s. continued to be an annual problem. called the doctor fix. i guess for budgeting reasons, way back when they decided that they would only fund that increase in doctor payments for one year. then every year it comes up. every year it grows because of the general inflation in healthcare. it needs to be fixed permanently as p
-term cost of how it will really poisoned the well in these negotiations. we are talking about deficit reduction, and the president is proposing new spending at top of all the other spending. republicans going into the deficit reduction talks talking about another dividend tax cut is something like that. a very poisonous way to start since the negotiations between two sites. the second thing that is important here is how we are viewing these jobless benefits. the administration is firming in in terms of job creation. that is not what they are. gerri: this is a study they did it, extending jobless benefits would create 300,000 jobs. i had to read it twice to figure out what they were talking about . and it still made no sense to me. explain the contorted logic to work here. >> thee're saying by putting money into the pockets of unemployed people that will deal to spend it on rant and consumer goods which will create jobs in the real-estate industry in the retail industry. the problem is a does not take into account that the people have to look for jobs that would also be doing that. dou
balanced approach to the deficit. it does have some revenue in it, even though it's not from tax increases. so what does this opening offer say about where we are in these negotiations? >> well, it seems very difficult to imagine that we're going to be getting to a deal that will handle everything that needs to be addressed before the end of the year. i think the first main thing that needs to be addressed is the question of the tax cuts expiring. and for the obama administration, the question is, is it in their interest to trade tax cuts for the wealthy? increase for the wealthy for raising the age for eligibility for medicare, for example. i'm not sure that that's a trade that they are eager to make immediately. >> let me show you the side by side comparison. the president wants $1.6 trillion in revenue and republicans want to cap the same deductions for the rich but republicans want to change the age to 67 and change the way they calculate social security payments. i wonder, though, when we look at these numbers, are we that far apart in. >> i think they are definitely rather far aare p
a trillion dollars in cuts. revenues are needed and job creation is essential to reducing the deficit. >> reporter: now one weapon that the administration has at its disposals treasury secretary timothy geithner could tell companies to freeze the withholding rates for those making up to $250,000. i should be clear that geithner has not threatened to do so, in fact he's down-playing it. but if the congress and the white house fail to get a deal geithner could act on his own in the new year to freeze withholding rates for those making up to 250k. jon. jon: interesting. mike emanuel in the capitol building, thank you. jenna: the president's opening bid to avoid the fiscal cliff, already called a none starter by republicans including this $1.6 trillion in new taxes. 400billion in spending cuts, tbd specifically on that. a little extra cash for infrastructure spending, republicans call that stimulus. and a plea for new powers to raise the debt ceiling without having to go directly to congress. joe trippi is howard dean's former campaign manager and a fox news contributor. good to see you t
put together a plan to move us towards some kind of deficit reduction package eventually evolved into the simpson-bowles commission plan. but the point i was making and i think the speaker is making is republicans have not come out here with some hardball, crazy off-the-table negotiation. what they have done is put something that bill clinton's former chief of staff at one time odd voe indicated for. and i think in the end that reflects that we are moving toward the potential compromise deal. >> he said -- >> i think i'm inappropriately in the middle here. i ought to be over there on the left. what bowles said yesterday was i was testifying before congress, and i described that as a midpoint between what republicans want and what democrats wanted. it was not what i would recommend. but i don't think that's even relevant. >> -- circumstances have changed since then. >> i don't even think that's relevant. i think the real question here and i think ron's right about this is are tax rates going to go up? yes, they're going to go up, because republicans are not going to have to vote f
a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn't hurt the economy and doesn't hurt middle class families. if we agree that we should not raise taxes on middle class families, let's begin our work with where we agree. >> of course there are some lawmakers who are not that optimistic. they don't think there's enough time between now and the end of the year to get a deal done. nonetheless the president will continue pushing his message. he heads to pennsylvania tomorrow. he will go to a manufacturing plant where he will continue talking about extending the middle class tax cuts, not extending them for the upper class americans. in the meantime, there's pushback from republicans who are saying the president should not be out the road campaigning but back here in washington negotiating. >> dan, i will ask you to look into your crystal ball. president obama is meeting with mitt romney later today. do you have any idea what they plan to discuss? >> you know, there's a lot of speculation about governor romney playing a role in the administration. but the president himself, during his victory spe
him for a long time, deficit hawk. they haven't allowed him to put a budget out for years. he's growing frustrated. i'm sure he's going to be glad to leave. but i was surprised by that as well. you see also, sam stein, republicans are now starting to really bash boehner from the right. the president needs to take note. he needs to take note. >> give him some running room. >> i'm only saying this because you remember, we went through this with newt. you know, bill clinton would push newt only so far, and then the conservatives in the caucus like myself and matt salmon, steve largent and others would say we're not doing a deal. we will take this place down. we're not doing a deal. and then newt would call bill clinton up and say, you're pushing me too far. you've got to work with me here. the same thing's happening right now with boehner. >> with boehner. >> the republican -- and when you start stripping people of committee -- committee seats, war breaks out and it gets really -- it happened with us. it's about to happen here. he's got to realize that boehner is his partner. >>
to bring down our deficits and stream line tax. including asking the wealthiest americans to pay more for education and train science and research. >> any republican who buys this is a fool. republicans have stood for one thing statistically that held them. they are the low tax party. the other guys want to tax to match their reckless spending. if they give it up now in return for nothing, obama wins and high wins big. i understand why the democrats are doing this. they imagine that republicans have no bargaining power today . i say that it is true if republicans resist they will take the blame and that will help democrats in the congress. but obama's never running again. he doesn't care who gets the blame. he is the president and a blame duck. he wants a successful second term. if it starts by going over the cliff it starts with second recession and wrecked second term. >> steve: that's why the president said i would be willing to do anything to get a deal. >> gretchen: it is not a deal. this is what the american public needs to know. this is raising taxos successful people and reduc
for raising revenues, cutting spending and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. he said the ball is in the g.o.p.'s court. >> you have heard them for the first time i think in two decades they are willing to have revenues go up to make a balanced plan but they have to tell you what they want do on rates and revenues. >> he says there is no plan to an agreement unless they acknowledge tax rates have to go up for the wealthiest americans. >> heather: thank you very much. with less than one month to reach a deal there is new urgency to reach a deal. coming up our political panel will debate the zik go points. >> brand-new reaction today from the potential nominee of u.n. ambassador susan rice to be the next secretary of state. a senator reiterating concerns about statements she made following the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. in the meantime, clare mccaskill came to the ambassador's defense. >> she had reviewed the dpeor foer going. >> on sunday shows and went well beyond the talking points, we have decimated al-qaeda, that was nowhere on the talking points
and deficit -- why would the president be proposing $255 billion in war spending? >> well, he's not. what he is proposing is shifting spending priorities. after those cuts, shifting priorities, and by the way -- this is infrastructure development. this is to make sure that people who have gone the payroll tax relief keep that payroll tax relief and expanding unemployment benefits. i will say this. this is the president's initial proposal. the silence from the republicans is deafening. they can counter this. but all they have done is whine and weep and cry and laugh about like hysterical children. where is there for books will? be one less give the viewers the numbers. if there is a 50 billion dollars stimulus proposal for the infrastructure problem, he also wants to extend unemployment benefits and extend the two percentage point payroll tax and adding it all up together, it equals $255 billion out of the federal government pocket. we got into this cliff because they thought there was too much spending that we could not pay for, and they made the president insists that he wanted to raise our
will still continue to raise our deficit beyond unbelievable numbers you can't even find on your calculator. >> my hope is to get this done before christmas. >> you might call this thelma and louise economics. >> our country doesn't need a victory lap. it needs photo-op. >> i don't think they're going to take pictures. >> extraordinary financial gifts. >> he did a terrific job running the olympics. >> worked agris sifly to turn them out to vote. >> if it was president bill clinton ideas might actually be exchanged. what percentage of people watching right now think proev is going to offer mitt romney secretary of commerce? >> play my jam! ♪ >> i got my costco card. >> three packs of shirt from costco. >> americans want to celebrate christmas not the holidays. >> except if you go to brown university. >> they think there's a made-up war on christmas. there is a war on christmas. >> i don't look down on you. i don't think you're a pinhead. why are you messing around with christmas. >> don't tell me what i think. >> nothing says christmas like santa and ak-47s. >> when i sing "white christmas
out sensible spending cuts that must be part of any significant agreement that will reduce our deficit. >> the president has put forward in september of 2011 with his proposal to the so-called super committee and his budget of february of 2011 very specific spending cuts, including savings from health care entitlement programs. >> so one of the issues is, when you talk specifics and they become part of the public conversation, it's very easy for those things to get derailed in the time available where all the sides sort of clamber and attack some of the specifics. both parties have an interest in keeping some of this close to the vest. what we're hearing from senate democrats today is they believe that the election suggests that the public really wants those higher rates for the higher earners in terms of taxes. senator reid and other democrats don't want to talk about specific cuts or entitlement reforms publicly. everyone saying they don't want to negotiate from the podium. but everyone is aware it's the end of november. there isn't a lot of time left. and how quickly and how peacefu
's the federal deficit. it's the federal debt, which is a huge risk for national security. right now the defense department has taken, as i said, about can half a trillion dollars of deduction in the first round but the strategy aligns to the point we can meet national security objectives and still accomplish or make though cuts. if you start putting another half a trillion on top of, that you shatter the strategy. and then national security has to be free thought. i propose we need more of a fiscal stairstep reduction so that reductions can be made with strategy in mind. strategy and national security needs have got to be tweaked and done in concert. that's the way to do this. and i think in the end, you know, you're going to have to see reduction -- you're going to have to see more reductions in defense, but hopefully nowhere near the levels that the fiscal cliff and sequestration would impose. >> so, are employees expecting this? i mean, have you to be living under a rock not to see what's going on with the fiscal cliff, but are you planning on laying off employees if sequestration is trigger
offer a counter proposal on the fiscal cliff. their plan, $2.2 trillion deficit savings over the next decade, but it does not include higher tax rates for the wealthy. the house speaker john boehner calls it a credible plan that deserves serious consideration by the white house. guess what? the white house released a statement tonight saying the plan is nothing new, that it lowers rates for the wealthy and sticks the middle class with the bill. so to borrow a phrase, we're nowhere. period. david walker is president and ceo of comeback america initiative. he's made it his mission to promote fiscal responsibility. he joins us along with cnn political analyst, david gergen. the house republicans put forward their counter proposal. speaker boehner says it's credible and the white house should consider it. is it credible or is it more of what you have called the irresponsible unethical immoral behavior of all the politicians here in washington? >> i think both sides are now putting things on the table but i think they're confused. what we have to do in the short term is avoid the fiscal cl
during the campaign, which is a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction and unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> nbc's luke russert begins the coverage live on capitol hill. luke, first read this morning put a rather positive spin on duelling deals arguing there's a silver lining if you split the difference. unpack that for us. >> reporter: s.e., you saw that the republicans' offer was immediately dismissed by the white house. president obama, his team of communications advisers saying it's more of the same and won't work. the speaker was not offering to raise taxes on those making 250 or above. that's a big sticking point. if you look at both plans and split the difference and run the math, if you take the 800 billion in revenue that speaker boehner has offered, the 1.6 trillion the white house wants, you split the difference 1.2. if you split the difference on the cuts, you get to 450, 500 billion. numbers that folks on both sides think is feasible in the realm of a large deal. i spoke to a senior republican senator earlier today, an
because we thought the budget was going to be -- the deficit was going to be about $150 billion. that shocked everyone into action. then, unlike now, there remains some degree of bipartisanship. there was comity, there was discussion, even as we battled over the budget, we worked together in a bipartisan way on many other issues. you didn't have the total polarization that you have today. >> i mean, when you were elected senate majority leader, i understand one of the first people that you called was the minority leader, senator dole. >> that's right. i called him right away, i went to see him almost immediately, and i said to him look, you've been here a long time, i'm relatively new, these are very tough jobs in the best of circumstances, and if we don't have some degree of trust between us, they will be impossible jobs. so i said to him i want to tell you how i intend to behave toward you and to ask that you behave towards me in the same way. and we agreed on the most basic of things. i told him i would not surprise him, that's important in the senate. that he would always ha
shot down the theory of closing loopholes to cut the deficit saying it's exactly that. a theory. >> it is not possible for us to raise the amount of revenue that's required for a balanced package if all you're relying on is closing deductions and loopholes. it is possible to do theoretically. it is not possible or wise to do as a practical matter. >> the president then threw a left hook warning republicans who think they might be aim able to use the debt ceiling as leverage in future negotiations and saying essentially dream on. >> if congress in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again, as part of a budget negotiation, which by the way we have never done in our history until we did it last year, i will not play that game. because we've got to break that habit before it starts. >> joining me now from the capitol dome, nbc's luke russert. i don't know, i think that was what we call officially laying the smack down over there at the business roundtable. i was really surprised that the president wen
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 112 (some duplicates have been removed)